Atheism in America
ft.com
ft.com
All that said I think atheists run into the problem of not their behavior but rather the behavior of "that guy". You know him. Maybe you are him. It's "that guy who can't shut up and says insulting things about people who believe in anything spiritual at all" But "that guy" is a pain to be around. I worked with "that guy" once and hearing him compare my beliefs to the flying spaghetti monster was pretty ignorant and if I valued his opinion more than I do would have been insulting. He would repeat this week after week seemingly escalating his rhetoric to upset me. I have long since worked out how I feel about all this so I held my own just fine. My only point in mentioning him is that for another person this might have been pretty annoying and upsetting.
I've run into "that guy" on multiple occasions-enough to notice who he is and steer clear at parties and at work. The only advice I have for you is if you are that guy or find yourself being that guy just stop. You're giving all reasonable, just don't believe in God but don't want to hassle you non-believers a really bad name. Though so do Sam Harris and Dawkins so maybe you should avoid them too.
Now... where I do have problems is when personal belief issues spill over in to larger civic life and are made in to public issues. That's what voting is for, and uninformed voters scare me, regardless of religious belief/non-belief. It's easier to see many larger sects of religious believers voting in lock-step on many topics than it is to see non-believers voting, and makes an easier target for discussion, especially around this time every 4 years in the US. :)
How does that differ from the fellow who believes that the Man in the Sky tells him what to do? I knew a fellow who heard the Voice - the diagnosis was "madness" (a diagnosis made decades ago when psychology was still in the Dark Ages).
And how does that differ from the fellow who believes that the Man in the Sky tells him what to do? But this time, no voice - the answer just "comes to me."
If someone believes foolishness about technology, sports or politics we're free to enlighten them. Like a fellow who believed that he could better his odds of winning the lottery by choosing numbers with a random-number generator. So why should we not criticize "religious thought"? Humans believe wrongly in every field. They should always be open to correction. There's nothing sacred about religion.
It is impossible to respect other peoples' opinions - there are too many of them, they conflict and they can't all be right. But you _can_ respect the other people. I believe that is what etiquette is for. Good manners can save the day.
I mean just consider the comparison you just made. How many schizophrenics have you heard of who can even keep their lives together without medication? It's a very serious condition. Compare their lives to that of the average churchgoer. It's not even debatable which you'd prefer to have.
You may have the good sense to keep those thoughts to yourself but don't be surprised if you share that no one really thinks highly of you for it.
You're giving all reasonable, just don't believe in God
but don't want to hassle you non-believers a really bad name.
Most of them doesn't call themselves nonbelievers, but atheists (in fact they're more antitheists/antibelievers than atheists),that's why I like to distance myself from them by calling myself a nonbeliever.
Oh well, not really. Christians are privileged as hell in every respect.
You have the right to believe in crazy ghosts and gods and whatnot but don't expect me to respect you for it or make any concession or accomodation to those beliefs. Fortunately for me i live in a country where atheists make up around 25% of the population and it is on the rise, in a few generations we will be rid of the absurd and horrible scourge on society that is religion.
That statement makes me sick. So horribly incorrect.
I'm tempted to guess that the author spends a lot of time around religious groups and churches, and thus, doesn't see many atheists on a daily basis.
I, on the other hand, spend almost no time around churches, and when I traveld across the USA 4 times in the past 3 years, I met a lot of atheists - and they definitely weren't in isolation.
The author isn't saying that all atheists are isolated, but rather that there are many atheists that are.
It's like me saying:
"I saw a lot of black cats when driving across the country."
and you replying:
"Nonsense, I drove across the country and saw plenty of white cats but no black ones, therefore there cannot be black cats all over the country."
You said you spend no time around churches. Isn't a church exactly the kind of place an "in the closet" atheist would feel most isolated, and have to maintain the most secrecy?
When I was in the Army and in Bosnia I would eat in the chow tent every night. I was a private and there was a sergeant that worked there that I would chat with almost every night. Keep in mind that I was a private and he was a sgt, so he had a lot of power over me. One night he asked if I was a "good christian boy", and I said "nope, I'm an atheist". He never spoke to me again and would give me dirty looks if we ever made eye contact.
I learned pretty quick to keep my atheism to myself in the military. I've also learned that the same is true in many parts of this country.
This is a shame. There are other schemes, such as "shoe box gifts" which tend to be run by churches too.
It seems there's a gap in humanitarian working for rationalist, evidence based, atheist, projects that use best quality engineering and so on.
"What aspects of religion should atheists (respectfully) adopt? Alain de Botton suggests a "religion for atheists" -- call it Atheism 2.0 -- that incorporates religious forms and traditions to satisfy our human need for connection, ritual and transcendence."
In practice, at every level of its society, this could not be further from the truth.